Eh, from what I read the EPA specifically said it was having some technical difficulties and needed more time. Of course, after the smog/ozone rules delay (among other questionable environmental decisions his administration has made), lots of groups are pretty skeptical of that line

"^^if that were true then there are more tangible and more easily done projects that could have a greater impact on the well being of the environment."

Hm yes. There are much bigger projects that'd have a great impact than global warming, which could lead to melting icecaps, ocean acidification, mass extinctions, desertified farmland worldwide, extreme weather. Seriously how fucking stupid are you TKE, are you even trying to think about this? Why the fuck would the Great Pacific Garbage Patch matter if the entire pacific ocean had too high of a PH level to support all but microbial life? Christ almighty get some perspective you dupe.

"I have no idea of the legality of this within the CAA, do you have a link?, but its pretty much how its always been done as far as I know."

The CAA regulates emissions of pollutants based upon a specific concentration of emissions. That concentration is a constant. It does NOT change with respect to what pollutant is being regulated. That concentration, IIRC, is written directly into the actual law. And, if that concentration were used to regulate CO2, it would effectively shut down every single hospital in nation. So the EPA just said "fuck it, we'll come up with our own number and regulate based on that".

Quote :

"Also, why is it so hard to believe liberals just want to protect the environment and not turn the Earth into Venus mk II ?"

Well, because, for one, Venus' surface temperature has little to do with CO2 and everything to do with an atmospheric pressure of 12atm. But let's not let the facts get in the way of the story. And, for another, if they were really concerned about protecting the environment, then AGW is hardly the worst of our concerns, as has already been noted. Yet, liberals are focusing almost exclusively on CO2 which is essentially a proxy for all human economic activity. Control CO2 emissions and you essentially control economic activity.

Quote :

"There are much bigger projects that'd have a great impact than global warming, which could lead to melting icecaps, ocean acidification, mass extinctions, desertified farmland worldwide, extreme weather."

despite any actual legitimate evidence of melting icecaps, mass extinctions due to AGW, or extreme weather changing. but yes, we should throw the whole global economy into the toilet to address this, just in case!

Quote :

"Herpy derp surely there are more important environmental issues than this one that happens to affect the entire globe and every ecosystem within it!"

And I can posit there being a giant meteor coming to the earth that will surely obliterate it and demand action right now!!!! despite having any proof of its existence.

" but yes, we should throw the whole global economy into the toilet to address this, just in case!"

Yes, shifting to alternative fuels would totally destroy the global economy. Much like subsidizing oil in the early 20th century when it wasn't initially profitable wrecked the entire global economy. Oh wait, it didn't, the subsidization actually spurred investment so quickly that oil came to characterize our energy infrastructure, and the 20th century ended up being the most fantastic rise in population, standard of living, economy, and industry in the history of planet fucking Earth.

Quote :

"And I can posit there being a giant meteor coming to the earth that will surely obliterate it and demand action right now!!!! despite having any proof of its existence."

Yeah, except there is abundant proof that AGW is happening and is already decimating ice caps, destroying all sorts of species, and causing extreme weather. You're just in denial of every shred of evidence, and clearly working backwards too. Why don't you forget for a moment that you don't like the idea of regulating CO2, because the fact of the matter is that no matter how much you hate putting stinging disinfectant on a wound, that doesn't mean you didn't get cut.

Note how they note the high pressure, then have about 4 paragraphs detailing how CO2 causes a greenhouse effect that results in most of the high temperature.

You can't just make up facts Aaronburro. Just because it would fit your "AGW isnt real" theory for CO2 to not be a greenhouse gas doesn't mean you can just make up such a fact. You seriously have a problem with working backwards from your conclusions to form your evidence.

You can do the kelvin-celsius conversion yourself, and you'll find that at 50km, the temperature on Earth is about 20 degrees Celsius (rounding up). So that's a 55 degree Celsius difference occurring at the same pressure. Hmm how can that be, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the hotter planet has an atmosphere composed 96.5% CO2, a greenhouse gas...

It's not going to entertain vague refutes. Please actually cite something, ANYTHING to back up your claim that CO2 has very little to do with Venus's heat. You're debating the very definition of a greenhouse gas at this point, so I'm very curious to see what your sources are.

^ It would seem to me that the prediction of a temperature anomaly in the first place would be the prediction of AWG.

Although a gradually increasing temperature anomaly is also predicted, that is 2nd order and there would be significantly lower probability of that behavior being observed over any given 5 or 10 year period.

1. There's a 7 year trend that contradicts your 80+ years trend. You see, after rising for all those decades, it's staying relatively motionless at the anomalous high! Therefor there is no global warming.

2. A percent of weather stations show local cooling. Therefor there is no global warming.

edit: Also I like your quote marks around consensus. If 97% of people who actually study and publish on the matter isn't a consensus, what is? Every Hillbilly and his sister has to agree too?

"There's a 7 year trend that contradicts your 80+ years trend. You see, after rising for all those decades, it's staying relatively motionless at the anomalous high! Therefor there is no global warming.

"

it does make you question human produced CO2 as a culprit though, since the BRICs have been skyrocketing CO2 production during that period while production in the US was still going up.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM. Reason : then again, the BRIC's don't always use scrubbers and could be blanketing the atmosphere with soot]

^yeah for the most part. CO2 emissions are at an all time high, and yet the global temperature has stopped increasing. This counters every computer model. Nobody likes to talk about how the sun's activity over the last 150 years has been very very high as well.

"CO2 emissions are at an all time high, and yet the global temperature has stopped increasing."

Do you really think that this implies that the threat is less than what's claimed? I mean, this "stall" of temperature has only been like 5 years. Do you think that those 5 years of temperature history is convincing? And if they are, what is it convincing of? That the computer models are wrong? I think that's pretty clearly misdirection.

The only physical factors necessary to arrive at the "alarmist" perspective of AGW are the radiative forcing of CO2 accurately evaluated from about 350-750ppm, the temperature sensitivity to forcing, the water vapor sensitivity to temperature, and the radiative forcing of water over the range of typical concentrations.

"Yeah, except there is abundant proof that AGW is happening and is already decimating ice caps, destroying all sorts of species, and causing extreme weather. "

do we have to go through this circle where you say something is true and then I say it's not.

Quote :

"Note how they note the high pressure, then have about 4 paragraphs detailing how CO2 causes a greenhouse effect that results in most of the high temperature."

It's too bad that the pressure is STILL what is causing the high temperatures. In order for the CO2 to be heating the surface, the sunlight has to actually get to the surface in order to be reflected back and then get trapped by the CO2. it's not. when we look at Boyle's law, we actually see an agreement with expected temperatures and pressures. THat's not to say that CO2 is not offering any heating, but it's to say that the vast majority of the temperature is due to pressure.

"In order for the CO2 to be heating the surface, the sunlight has to actually get to the surface in order to be reflected back and then get trapped by the CO2."

Yes, this would be correct.

Quote :

"It's too bad that the pressure is STILL what is causing the high temperatures."

The pressure? You mean the mass thickness of the atmosphere?

And if you're thinking "PV=nRT so the pressure increases temperature," then you need to learn some physics. The surface temperature of a planet is determined by the radiative balance between the other bodies and space itself, in addition to some small heat input to the system from the planet core.

Seriously, one link to any wacko site you can find that says Venus is hot because primarily because of pressure and not CO2.

Just to make you think: Pressure does not, in itself, create heat. If you have a system with heat in it, and compress it, the apparent heat rises. That means that the temperature increase, as caused by pressure, is proportional to the amount of heat in the system to begin with. The heat retention of a planet is almost entirely a function of its atmospheric content. We've known since the 1850's (Thanks, John Tyndall) that even trace amounts of CO2 increase heat retention dramatically.

Yet again, I'll point out that at altitudes around 50km, Earth and Venus have roughly the same atmospheric pressure, yet Venus is still significantly hotter (~75 celsius vs. ~20 celsius). I mean, are you outright denying the existence of greenhouse effects? If not, what the fuck do you make of the fact that these two planets have a temperature difference of 100+ degrees Farenheit at the same altitude and pressure?.

Here, a link to a page that is probably more words than you've read in your life but if you manage to get through the first few paragraphs maybe you'll learn something about this 100+ year science that you're denying http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

All other things equal, the thicker an atmosphere the longer it takes heat to escape the planet as density reduces the effectiveness of radiative heat transmission. According to Wikipedia, Venus's atmosphere is about 1,334 psi or 91 times that of Earth.

At the altitude you suggest, 55-65km altitudes, you are right that the atmospheric pressure is about the same as Earth, but you are wrong to suggest it is significantly hotter, as according to the Magellan and Venus Express probes, the temperature at these altitudes is also comparable to Earth: "between 293 K (20 °C) and 310 K (37°C)"

Right there, pressure on Venus at 50 km is 75 degrees Celsius. Before you accuse me of lying, at least check my source.

edit: Oh I see. Sorry, I edited the post because 55-65 is not actually comparable, Venus's atmosphere is almost half of Earth's pressure at 55. That was just poor memory on my part when I said 55-65km, I was trying to remember a prior argument a few pages back. I edited it when I looked it up to confirm my numbers.

Funny though, when you said "At the altitude you suggest, 55-65km altitudes, you are right that the atmospheric pressure is about the same as Earth" you apparently did NOT check your numbers at first either. You'll see on that chart that at 55km, Venus's pressure is .5314 that of Earth's.

one more edit: Also, Venus's temperature is 91x of Earth's at surface level and reduces very quickly as altitude rises, much more quickly than Earth's pressure. Not all pressure distributions are equal, that's why it's valuable to find an altitude with comparable pressures.

Odd, pressure is usually not measured in degrees Celsius. You are clearly not a liar, merely mistaken. I stand corrected.

Quote :

"you apparently did NOT check your numbers. You'll see on that chart that at 55km, Venus's pressure is .5314 that of Earth's."

Based on the number of people that have been to Venus, it is reasonable for wildly different numbers to be floating about. Here is what Wikipedia says:

Quote :

"According to measurements by the Magellan and Venus Express probes, the area from 52.5 to 54 km has a temperature between 293 K (20 °C) and 310 K (37°C), and the area at 49.5 km above the surface is where the pressure becomes the same as Earth at sea level.[12][15] As manned ships sent to Venus would be able to compensate for differences in temperature to a certain extent, anywhere from about 50 to 54 km or so above the surface would be the easiest area in which to base an exploration or colony, where the temperature would be in the crucial "liquid water" range of 273 K (0°C) to 323 K (50°C) and the air pressure the same as habitable regions of Earth.[9][16]"

Based upon this, at the Altitude where Venus has a similar pressure to Earth, the temperature is also similar. Even using your numbers, 0.5 atmospheres is not that unusual, Earth has several mountains that high.

Really I'm just vexed that this AGW denialism reaches so deep that now we're debating whether or not Greenhouse Effect actually occurs. You guys are going way beyond questioning evidence or the quality of weather stations or models, you're questioning hard physics that's been settled for over a hundred years.

Not I, said the fly. It seems to be fairly settled that increasing CO2 concentrations from 0.039% to 0.078% by 2100 will increase global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius, per the 100 year old settled science.

The debate is over whatever new unsettled science people are using to turn a 1 degree Celsius increase into a catastrophe.

"All other things equal, the thicker an atmosphere the longer it takes heat to escape the planet as density reduces the effectiveness of radiative heat transmission. According to Wikipedia, Venus's atmosphere is about 1,334 psi or 91 times that of Earth. "

Maybe if you assumed that only the surface was radiating. The atmosphere itself radiates, and you can conceptually take the surface out of the equation if you want (like a gas planet). The greenhouse effect exists just the same, although it functions from gas to gas instead of surface to gas like Earth.

So what are you saying? Because it sure isn't clear from what your posts so far. Are you trying to argue that a thicker atmosphere, regardless of composition, causes a larger greenhouse effect? No, that wouldn't make sense, b/c as Str8Foolish has already argued (and no one tries to contradict), the functionality of the greenhouse effect at a position with comparable pressure to Earth is the only relevant comparison.

--

The surface of a planet has a choice of temperature. This is because it exists between the 3 Kelvin space and the much hotter radiation from the sun. With manipulation of radiative properties, the temperature can lie anywhere between those 2 extremes. And yes, you could use this difference to run a steam cycle.

The absorptive and reflective layers of a planet's surface will determine this balance. Vertical density and density itself literally doesn't matter. The atmosphere could be flat and the driving mathematics would be the same.

"Odd, pressure is usually not measured in degrees Celsius. You are clearly not a liar, merely mistaken. I stand corrected."

Oh Christ, I meant temperature. Look at the fucking chart. 52.5 to 54 km is not 50km, so I don't care what the probes found there. Considering the pressure as a proportion of Earth's HALVES between 50 and 55km, you can't just pretend that the temperature at 52.5 might as well be the temperature at 50 km.

"Lol, so fucking typical. When a denialist feels science bearing down on them, discredit all evidence except your secret sources from which you learned climatology's a hoax."

I gave you my only source. I read Wikipedia and it seemed to disagree with you. I quoted the relevant portion. What I find curious is that in a narrow range on a planet quite a bit closer to the sun than Earth, Earth like conditions exist. Yes, the pressure at the altitudes of habitable temperatures is lower, but the sun is closer, perhaps explaining quite a bit of the increased temperature.

Quote :

"Maybe if you assumed that only the surface was radiating. The atmosphere itself radiates"

Yes, and some percentage of that radiation will escape the atmosphere, some of it will be captured by other air before it does, only to be radiated again. All gasses are greenhouse gasses as they all have absorption rates greater than zero. Some are merely better than others (H2O and methane in particular, CO2 as well). As such, a denser atmosphere absorbs better than an less dense one, keeping the composition the same. Not keeping it the same does neat things. A pure CO2 atmosphere would perhaps need to be ten times denser to achieve the same greenhouse effect of a pure water vapor atmosphere.

"All gasses are greenhouse gasses as they all have absorption rates greater than zero."

Physically incorrect.

Absorption doesn't make it a greenhouse gas. The gas has to have an open window for incoming radiation and a closed window for outgoing radiation. More or less, it really just needs to be more transmitting for the incoming radiation.

As a simple though experiment, consider you're a ball. Half the sky is T1 and the other half is T2. If you are fully reflective of T1 then you are insulated from that temperature. If you are also fully absorptive of T2 at the same time, you can reach exactly T2.

Ignoring the difference in incoming and outgoing wavelengths is missing the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases.

Quote :

"As such, a denser atmosphere absorbs better than an less dense one, keeping the composition the same."

What you're going for is "optical thickness". That comes from the total # of atoms per unit area. Vaguely, that's ( density x height x cross section )

The extra detail matters because many gases in the atmosphere are completely opaque to many wavelengths. And that matter for the energy balance regarding incoming and outgoing.

Your combined gas law has 3 variables. But yet your argument sounds like it has 2 variables and a learning disability.

Here's your argument:Deep in the Venusian atmosphere the pressure is high, and this accounts for the high temperature

Well the density is also high. A given gas at a given pressure can exist at any temperature. I know this is going to be hard for you, but the temperature is determined by the heat flows into and out of the system.

so, you think it completely irrelevant that exactly what we would expect with regards to the CGL is occurring? It's an entire coincidence that we have a law that predicts a a higher temperature and then we actually have a higher temperature? Didn't you even agree that the sunlight has to reflect off of the surface to be trapped by the GHGs? I'm not saying there is zero influence from GHG, as it would seem completely illogical to suggest that. But to say that Venus' temperatures are 100% from GHG is equally absurd, especially when there is a known phenomenon and law that accounts for it on a huge scale.

If I set out two bottles on my porch in the sunlight, both enclosed, and one at twice the pressure, what will be the difference in temperature between them? Pretty much nothing. System boundaries for both of the gases are exactly the same. If I compressed one quickly, then I would change the temperature then I would change its temperature, but that's obviously not the case for Venus, but it would be an example of the combined gas law where changing pressure caused a changing temperature (and density for that matter).

The system boundaries for Earth and Venus differ by the intensity of radiation from the sun in addition to differences in the day length. We all seem to agree that the difference in temperature from Earth to Venus is due to properties of the atmospheric gases, and the boundary conditions are only a small contribution comparatively.

I think the ultimate counter argument to what burro is saying would be finding a rocky planet with an atmosphere the same thickness of Earth (and in the same orbital location) with a much higher surface temperature.

To another question at hand - what is the influence of having a surface reflecting the light versus just more gas? Well that gets into the complexities of energy-dependent radiative physics. The ground at any given location has a unique radiative profile. It totally reflects some wavelengths and totally absorbs others. However, it still emits exactly as much energy as it takes in over the long run. The gases will be very different in the regard of what energies it reflects and absorbs, but both emit light in a spectrum that is bounded by the black body radiation curve.

The most fundamental role that the ground plays is the convert the high temperature radiation from the sun into outgoing radiation that is the same temperature as itself. That same fundamental effect would be fulfilled by a gas just as well, but there are specifics that will be different.

"If I set out two bottles on my porch in the sunlight, both enclosed, and one at twice the pressure, what will be the difference in temperature between them?"

An excellent thought experiment. the air on Venus is in a highly turbulent atmosphere, causing the air to constantly change altitude and mix. As such, if this mixing was sufficiently thorough, then we would see what we expect to see based upon the NGL alone: air at the surface under 91x the pressure would be 91x the temperature of identical air under only 1 atm. The question would be whether the air is mixing enough to counteract inputs and outputs. Judging by the evidence, I suspect the answer is "close enough, at least at lower altitudes away from space."

The movement of gas from the upper to lower parts will make a very different situation. It's not true, however, that it will keep its temperature in the process. If it is a quick movement, then the process will be closer to a constant entropy process than a constant temperature process - even though it's not even constant entropy. It's simply not constant anything. You have the 3 values, pressure, density, and temperature, and due to the gas law, only 2 values are needed to specify the state.

You must have just arrived on planet Earth recently. The 'skeptics' deny that the Earth is warming until shown conclusively that it is. Then they assert again and again that it's the Sun. Then, having been shown that the Sun is actually in a cool spell the past few decades, remind us that Earth is in fact not warming.

^^Well what exactly are climate change denialists (like TKE-Teg and aaronburro in this thread for example) trying to prove when they claim that data stations that are indicating that we are warming do not have accurate data?

Weather stations are inaccurate but we're still warming as they indicate!!!! RAWR!

The weather stations are wrong and even if they are right it's the sun. Oh, the Sun's radiation has been dropping for 30 years? Did I say Sun? I meant volcanoes, because they release all that CO2. What? Humans release more CO2 than volcanoes? That doesn't matter, because CO2 is not a pollutant, plants eat it! This is all moot anyway because there IS no warming. Even if there was warming, it would be the Sun, because the Sun is heating up, causing the Earth to get warmer.

The weather station fiasco still trips me out. They want to rely on a biased website and aaronburro didn't even know what the weather stations the majority of people get their information were, where they are located yet maintains they are all culpable and this is all a vast conspiracy by the National Weather Service yet doesn't have the balls to challenge them directly. I hope that his/their tin foil hat is large enough to serve as an umbrella!

But seriously, not that he is anything resembling a credible source for anything despite hordes of "dittoheads" blindly hanging onto his every word, Rush Limbaugh spews constantly that Global Warming is a hoax and that the earth is NOT warming at all.